Good heavens! Where is this diavlog? Not that I can watch it now anyway...

Go to any diavlog. Look on the left side of you browser. It seems the homepage is a bit out of sink as this is not the only diavlog which I had to, at first, access this way.

Who knew? It takes a pair of moral philosophers to successfully decode why we post here!

This clip seems like a clear expression of what I've been trying to say in another thread on this topic. Minus all all of the thrash, and irrelevancies you might need to wade through to get to my argument in my own words.

I'm much more persuaded by Don's point of view than Peter's, but I think it's one of those deep questions (like free will and determinism) that people often have powerful and basically immutable intuitions about. The dialogue should get the BHeads Civility Award though. These guys were consistently respectful of each other, never interrupted, never talked over and never hogged the mic. Nice.

I'm still not sure what Moral Realism is. Based on the DV I am definitely in the Moral Irrealist camp. Having said that, if morality as an emergent property of human interaction (combining both the notion that we have instincts honed by natural selection and that we culturally discover effective strategies for the material circumstances we find ourselves in) is moral realism, I am happy to be a moral realist.

Peter Railton! I think I begged for him a while back. My begging is probably only coincidentally related to his appearing -- he probbly appears here because Geoffrey Sayre-McCord told him what a blast BloggingHeads was, but will anyone mind if I indulge my delusions of grandeur? Anyway, great to have him on BloggingHeads!!
He has certainly changed a good deal in the years since I saw him, but in another way, he looks pretty much the same. This was a terrific discussion. I do indeed hope we get these guys back. I would also like to see Railton talk to some of the experimental philosophers and philosophically minded psychologists, like Shaun Nichols or Jonathan Haidt.

Thanks, pisc. -- I might STILL be waiting for it to appear on the front page. I wonder if this is related to the new design.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Thanks, pisc. -- I might STILL be waiting for it to appear on the front page. I wonder if this is related to the new design.

Also, in case you didn't notice: each diavlog thread has a "View Diavlog" link available -- near the upper right corner ==> if you can see the thread, you can watch the diavlog.

Railton says that he feels he has had experiences that he felt and can't help but continue to feel were moral discoveries.
If you want to know in a rough and ready way what a moral realist is, it's someone who takes that seriously and fairly literally -- moral discoveries are possible, just as discoveries in economics or psychology or game theory are possible.
The anti-realist must deny that it is literally a discovery when someone "discovers" that slavery or racism is wrong.

Thanks Brendan. For a short while they put that in the opening post of the thread. Never saw where it got to. Even after you told me where it was it took me a long time to find it. In case I'm not the only blind person, let me point out that it "View Diavlog" is immediately under "Log Out" which is immediately under the little box that says "Welcome So and So" when you are viewing the comments in the thread.
But I probably am the only blind person.

What's so remarkable about the "discovery?" In the example he gives -- women's rights -- doesn't it simply suffice to say that he came to accept an argument as logical and valid that he hadn't much thought about previously? He already had learned a code of equal rights about other ethnicities, which he then analogously applied to women. All people have equal rights; women are people; therefore, women (also) have equal rights. He no more discovered women's rights than he discovered equality.

Quoting Wonderment: I'm much more persuaded by Don's point of view than Peter's, but I think it's one of those deep questions (like free will and determinism) that people often have powerful and basically immutable intuitions about.

The dialogue should get the BHeads Civility Award though. These guys were consistently respectful of each other, never interrupted, never talked over and never hogged the mic. Nice.

Yeah. And along with Carroll and Albert one of the most enjoyable DVlogs ever. BHTV has set a high standard in the past few days. I've almost certainly said too much about what I think on this topic, but obviously I'm pretty much in the tank with Don's point of view.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Thanks Brendan. For a short while they put that in the opening post of the thread. Never saw where it got to. Even after you told me where it was it took me a long time to find it. In case I'm not the only blind person, let me point out that it "View Diavlog" is immediately under "Log Out" which is immediately under the little box that says "Welcome So and So" when you are viewing the comments in the thread.
But I probably am the only blind person.

This won't help the blind, but it may help the hard-of-seeing:

Well, I never had any insights like that. I grew up in a culture that thought woman's rights etc. were good things. Some insights against my preconceived notions that my culture could have given me are that racism and sexism are good and I suppose if I has experienced such epiphanies, or if I had found God, I might buy into Moral Realism. As it stands, I just don't get it. I suspect (given what I've listened to) that you either get it or you don't. This is something about people that I do get. And that insight seems to cut against Moral Realism. That said, I'm no philosopher, so I concede that I might not have a clue.

How do you distinguish between a discovery and an invention?

Isn't that begging the question?

Quoting themightypuck: Isn't that begging the question?

Not at all. I think it highlights a core ambiguity. I'm not implying I have an answer.

Yeah, I don't mean to get my feet stuck in the mud here. Bloggin' Noggin seems to know a bit about philosophy and maybe he/she can clear some things up. It just seems to me that by definition, a moral realist is going to tend to think you discover things and a moral irrealist is going to think you invent things.

I am reminded why I left academic philosophy. Oy. The thought of being 30 years older and still spinning the same wheels.

Quoting Wonderment: What's so remarkable about the "discovery?"

In the example he gives -- women's rights -- doesn't it simply suffice to say that he came to accept an argument as logical and valid that he hadn't much thought about previously? He already had learned a code of equal rights about other ethnicities, which he then analogously applied to women.

All people have equal rights; women are people; therefore, women (also) have equal rights.

He no more discovered women's rights than he discovered equality.

He probably had to do two things, generalize his concept of equal rights to include women, and challenge other beliefs that had prevented him from doing it before. What I didn't hear much about is that there are conflicting values. People are more or less aware of that. Some of the so-called epiphanies (by the way what I heard from Peter didn't sound like one), are, I think, just the sudden removal of one of those obstacles. I include prejudice as one of the most common players in the obstacle camp. The other factor is "appreciation". In order to make complex decisions you have to consider the relative value of the individual beliefs to be

You never know. You might have figured it out. It might only be turtles down to 12,321 feet.

Quoting themightypuck: Bloggin' Noggin seems to know a bit about philosophy and maybe he/she can clear some things up.

Heh. Whenever I have a discussion within the topic with him, I find out, not so much how little I know, but how great the distance before I know anything.

Quoting themightypuck: It just seems to me that by definition, a moral realist is going to tend to think you discover things and a moral irrealist is going to think you invent things.

That's exactly the point. If you start by naming something as either discovery or invention the choice needs justification.

Quoting themightypuck: You never know. You might have figured it out. It might only be turtles down to 12,321 feet.

Awesome! Answer of the Week.

Quoting themightypuck: You never know. You might have figured it out. It might only be turtles down to 12,321 feet.

I'm with Brendan. Awesome response!

Quoting AemJeff:

Originally Posted by themightypuck
It just seems to me that by definition, a moral realist is going to tend to think you discover things and a moral irrealist is going to think you invent things.

That's exactly the point. If you start by naming something as either discovery or invention the choice needs justification.

You can only discover what already exists. What about this: suppose that we do invent moral norms. Cultures that invent norms that lead to better living conditions for the members of that culture, will prevail. Cultures that invent norms that are self- destructive, well, the obvious, they self-destruct. So when we look at the surviving cultures and we see similar moral principles across them, it may appear that they are discoveries. What about looking at cultures that perished? Can we find cultures that perished because of having a different set of moral principles?

Quoting Ocean: You can only discover what already exists.

What about this: suppose that we do invent moral norms. Cultures that invent norms that lead to better living conditions for the members of that culture, will prevail. Cultures that invent norms that are self- destructive, well, the obvious, they self-destruct. So when we look at the surviving cultures and we see similar moral principles across them, it may appear that they are discoveries. What about looking at cultures that perished? Can we find cultures that perished because of having a different set of moral principles?

If you were to replace the word "invent" in that second graf with "discover" do you think that sense of it would change substantively?

Quoting AemJeff: If you were to replace the word "invent" in that second graf with "discover" do you think that sense of it would change substantively?

No, if you use discover as you would use to say: "I discovered a path to get through the woods." Was there a path before me? Did I discover or invent it?
These are the traps of language. We shouldn't get stuck on our own imperfect modes of communication. Don't you think?

Ok, I get the "discovery" thing now. You can only discover what already exists. So if your intuition is "discovery," it's like finding a moral fact about things. It was out there all the time and not derived from your tastes, customs, values, etc. Still sounds like semantics to me though. The experience of "discovery" can be deconstructed (easily?) by irrealists. This seems to all go back to Hume v. Kant, as I recall. Isn't it just another version of empiricsim vs rationalism? My training is linguistics, so I followed Chomsky a long way down the trail of rationalism, but was never ultimately convinced. This isn't AS hard a problem as THE hard problem, but it's pretty hard

Quoting Wonderment: Ok, I get the "discovery" thing now. You can only discover what already exists. So if your intuition is "discovery," it's like finding a moral fact about things. It was out there all the time and not derived from your tastes, customs, values, etc.

Still sounds like semantics to me though. The experience of "discovery" can be deconstructed (easily?) by irrealists.

This seems to all go back to Hume v. Kant, as I recall. Isn't it just another version of empiricsim vs rationalism?

My training is linguistics, so I followed Chomsky a long way down the trail of rationalism, but was never ultimately convinced.

This isn't AS hard a problem as THE hard problem, but it's pretty hard

Ay, señor, pero en qué enredo de palabras estamos? Being a linguist, don't you think that words are a problem? In terms of how hard THE problem, it's AS hard as you want it to be. ???

Quoting Ocean: No, if you use discover as you would use to say: "I discovered a path to get through the woods." Was there a path before me? Did I discover or invent it?
These are the traps of language. We shouldn't get stuck on our own imperfect modes of communication. Don't you think?

But you could say "I invented the path" and still be both grammatically and logically correct. Who is to say that that one particular solution to a problem (how to get from here to there) isn't an "invention?" Did Edison invent the tungsten filament or did he discover that tungsten was a better substance for that purpose than the thousand others he tried? The whole question edges toward Platonism, which is a subject that hurts my head.

Quoting AemJeff: The whole question edges toward Platonism, which is a subject that hurts my head.

Could that be from looking at the shadows for too long? And that said, it's time to go.

Quoting Wonderment: Ok, I get the "discovery" thing now. You can only discover what already exists. So if your intuition is "discovery," it's like finding a moral fact about things. It was out there all the time and not derived from your tastes, customs, values, etc.

Related issues arise in the philosophy of mathematics. Are there mathematical discoveries? Did Pythagoras, for example, discover the Pythagorean Theorem, or did he invent/construct it? Intuitively, it seems the Pythagorean Theorem has always been true, even before any human thought of it -- i.e., intuitively, it seems it was discovered. But if that's right, what are these "things," these mathematical truths, that are discovered? Weird, eternally existing, abstract entities of some sort? (I don't have a considered opinion on this -- or on the question of moral (ir)realism for that matter -- so don't ask me!)

Wonderment, the original request was to get a sense of WHAT MORAL REALISM IS. I explained what it was in reference to a particular kind of experience: realists will interpret "discovery" literally, antirealists must explain it away". I made no claims about how stunning Railton's discovery was, nor did I say that the antirealist couldn't begin to explain it away as he must. I was simply giving themightypuck an explanation of the distinction itself. Of course, I don't think the antirealist attempts to explain the feeling of discovery away works all that well, but please recognize that I wasn't offering evidence for moral realism (though this does count as prima facie evidence), but simply explaining the distinction.

Quoting mvantony: Related issues arise in the philosophy of mathematics. Are there mathematical discoveries? Did Pythagoras, for example, discover the Pythagorean Theorem, or did he invent/construct it? Intuitively, it seems the Pythagorean Theorem has always been true, even before any human thought of it -- i.e., intuitively, it seems it was discovered. But if that's right, what are these "things," these mathematical truths, that are discovered? Weird, eternally existing, abstract entities of some sort? (I don't have a considered opinion on this -- or on the question of moral (ir)realism for that matter -- so don't ask me!)

How about saying that mathematics is a description of relationships?
The relationships are there, independent from us, ready to be discovered. But we invent the description, i.e. mathematics.
Just a thought...

Quoting Ocean: How about saying that mathematics is a description of relationships?
The relationships are there, independent from us, ready to be discovered. But we invent the description, i.e. mathematics.
Just a thought...

That sounds like a realist position -- like saying we invent descriptions (symbolic representations) of moral truths, i.e. we invent ethics, but the moral truths themselves are independent of us, ready to be discovered. Is that what you mean?

Quoting mvantony: That sounds like a realist position -- like saying we invent descriptions (symbolic representations) of moral truths, i.e. we invent ethics, but the moral truths themselves are independent of us, ready to be discovered. Is that what you mean?

No, not quite. I think what I'm trying to say is that there is probably one (not necessarily only one, but just for the example), set of moral truths that happen to work best for the development of a lasting culture, and we could call them the "good" rules. We "invent" those rules. Those rules aren't predetermined necessarily, and there is no external reality that embodies "goodness". But if we were to invent other rules, and those lead to self-destruction, you could say that they were the "wrong" rules.
The concept of right or wrong is dependent on the outcome. And, ultimately, we decide what is a good or bad outcome. This part appears to support the idea of free will. However, the limits are imposed (this is the deterministic part) by the fact that certain choices (of moral rules in this case) are going to lead to bad outcomes, such as self-destruction.
It's like a trial and error sort of thing.
Does that help?

Quoting Ocean: Does that help?

I was wondering if what I said about the independent existence of moral truths versus our invention/construction of descriptions of moral truths is (more or less) what you had in mind for mathematics. In any event, though, in my post I really just wanted to point out that intuitions about discovery, and their relation to questions about realism, also come up in the philosophy of mathematics.

Quoting mvantony: I was wondering if what I said about the independent existence of moral truths versus our invention/construction of descriptions of moral truths is (more or less) what you had in mind for mathematics.

I guess I could say yes. However, if you talk about "Truth" we are back in a very abstract mental construct which we could argue for ever whether it has any external reality or not. So if you use the word "truth" you are already leaning towards something "out there" to be discovered. I prefer to think when it refers to morality, in terms of possible sets of principles, values and behaviors (or whatever the actual concrete definition), that we "invent". We can invent many kinds of those, but perhaps only one or a few, actually would work optimally for the lasting development of a culture. In mathematics, it would be more like studying relationships, (if I combine these 2 over here with those 2 over there, what do I get? I get 4., and so on). So mathematics is the language that describes those kinds of relationships. We don't invent the relationships, only the descriptions. However, we may choose to look at those relationships in peculiar ways, while there may other ways of

I agree that it might be turtles down to only some limited amount. I mean, who would have thought that a discovery like that of the necessary a posteriori was possible before Kripke?

I got that. Your attempt at an unbiased explanation seemed quite obvious.

You should be more careful. I'm clearly trying to trap people in a rapidly thickening matrix of induction problems. A rational person would naturally extrapolate turtles all the way down.

Does evolution discover what exists?